Nerd02

I mainly write JS and not having a backtick on my keyboard annoys the fuck out of me. Other than that the Italian keyboard is alright, never had any other problems with it.

I literally quoted a source. Want more? This is the Cathechism of the Catholic Church on the topic of free will:

1730

1730 God created man a rational being, conferring on him the dignity of a person who can initiate and control his own actions. "God willed that man should be 'left in the hand of his own counsel,' so that he might of his own accord seek his Creator and freely attain his full and blessed perfection by cleaving to him."

1739

1739 Freedom and sin. Man's freedom is limited and fallible. In fact, man failed. He freely sinned. By refusing God's plan of love, he deceived himself and became a slave to sin. This first alienation engendered a multitude of others. From its outset, human history attests the wretchedness and oppression born of the human heart in consequence of the abuse of freedom.

If instead you were looking for philosophical evidence for God's existance, I recommend reading Thomas Aquinas' Five Ways.

That is spot on. Contrary to Protestant (and in particular Evangelical) belief, the Catholic Church teaches that there are four senses through which one can read Scripture: one is literal, while the other three are spiritual (allegorical, moral and anagogical) and can help us interpret Christ's message and how we should or should not behave during our earhthly lives. This is the relevant section from the Catechism.

I am not familiar with Orthodox theology, but I would assume they would have a similar position on the topic.

Oh yeah. No doubt about that, you never stop learning. It applies to all aspects of life, not just religion.

Reading that links it looks like I actually did know what the discussion is about and just got confused. I googled "christian apologists" like OP called it, found no exact definitions and so I started wondering if maybe it was something I didn't know about. Protestant denominations often have weird names and I keep finding out about new ones, maybe there was also a prot denomination called "apologists". Guess not, though.

Uh I see. I didn't know any of those people, so I had to google that discussion between Alex O'Connor and Wiliam Lane Craig. Listened along for quite a bit and it was actually very interesting (so thank you, I'll definitely finish listening to the whole thing later on).

From the way the used that "technique" I am guessing it isn't really that much about Christianity but rather, as others have said, a way to connect to the other person. People often get understandably heated during theological debates (understandably so, our most important beliefs are being challenged), maybe calling the other person by their name is a way to try and remembering the human and forming a sort of emotive connection that could otherwise get lost during the discussion.

Why specifically Christians? I don't have an answer to that one. I am guessing it might happen more frequently with religion talks rather than say politics, or other frequent topics of discussion, because religion tends to appeal more often to morality and thus emotions. Just a guess, though.

What do you mean when you say: "christian apologists"? I'm afraid I am not understanding your question and that's me speaking as a Christian.

Do you mean people defending Christian positions in thelogical debates? Or is it the name of some niche sect I am not aware of?

I guess we could all see this one coming. IIRC all three nations had been suspended after their respective military coups, so it's understandable that the dictators had little simpathy for ECOWAS

Yes.

How is being more virtuous shooting ourselves in the foot, exactly?

Let me clarify. It's great on an environmental standpoint, it's quite terrible on an industrial and commercial one. If we are the only ones imposing climate regulation, businesses and industries will move abroad where it's cheaper to operate. I'm not saying scrapping the green deal laws is a good thing, but I am saying that I can see the logic behind it. And it's not because of the evil capitalism either, it's a desperate attempt for European industry to stay relevant on the global stage.

30+ year approach? Where is that coming from? The median construction time for a nuclear reactor is 89 months, or 7,5 years. And it's not like we are only going to need it now either, our civilization is going to need reliable power sources for the foreseeable future, so why settle with alternatives that can only barely cover our needs now and need to be replaced with fossil fuels when not available, when a much cleaner option (that being nuclear) remains a possibility?

The wind always blows somewhere. Diversification of locations across a country or ideally across Europe minimizes reliability issues.

That somewhere will also need power, though. Not to mention, building interconnections across nations is an arduous task that requires time and financing on its own. According to the European Commission the current objective is reaching a 15% interconnection capacity by 2030 (meaning every member state should be able to export up to 15% of its capacity). And only 16 of 27 countries are on track with that objective. Sure, going forward with this will be great and very much necessary, but we cannot rely solely on interconnections, even when thinking 10 years from now.

Let's take last night as an example: here are the electricity map data for Germany. At midnight, despite having an enormous renewable capacity installed, the wind was evidently pretty low and of course solar was of little use, so they still had to fire up their coal, gas and biomass generators.

As this was going on, neighbouring Austria and Netherlands were doing great, with respectively 85% and 71% of their grids being powered by renewables, but unfortunately this wasn't nearly enough for power hungry Germany.
In the meantime, France, despite only using 24% of renewables in its mix, managed to get the 4th lowest carbon intensity on our continent and the 7th worldwide, with a carbon intensity over 10 times better than that of Germany.

The rest can be covered by investment in storage technologies.

Some day, sure. But we need reliable and clean energy now, not in the distant future. So the first step is improving our grids today, then when the technology allows it we can phase out nuclear too, and move to a fully renewable grid. But that simply cannot happen right now.

I am really conflicted about this. On one hand I get that green policies are instrumental in stopping climate change before it's too late. On the other I know some people who work in the automotive industry and they all agree that we shot ourselves in the foot with this regulation. We ended up being the only committed ~~nation~~ block (whatever) while anyone else (namely China, India and the USA) kept doing little or nothing, token contributions if any, but few long run plans like we did.

Surely there is lots of lobbying from the car industry behind this EPP decision, but I wouldn't be surprised if it was also the genuine intention of many voters. Our industry is already falling behind, being the only ones concerned with green policies isn't helpful at all, it just allows everyone else to outcompete us.